Citation Nr: 9924553
Decision Date: 08/27/99 Archive Date: 09/08/99
DOCKET NO. 99-06 453 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
L. J. Nottle, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran had active service from June 1951 to February
1955. His appeal ensues from a July 1998 rating decision of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in
St. Louis, Missouri (RO).
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The veteran's claim is plausible and VA has fulfilled its
duty to assist by properly and fully developing all relevant
evidence necessary for its equitable disposition.
2. The evidence of record includes a clear diagnosis of
PTSD, and an opinion linking PTSD to an in-service stressor.
3. The veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy.
4. The record contains credible supporting evidence that the
claimed stressor actually occurred.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
PTSD was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110,
1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304
(1998).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
The veteran contends that he developed PTSD as a result of
experiencing service-related stressors while serving aboard
the USS Juneau during the Korean conflict from April 1952 to
November 1952. These stressors included acting as a gunner,
which required taking out enemy ships, being under constant
fire from the enemy, and witnessing the sinking of several
North Korean ships. Based on the veteran's contentions,
which are presumed to be credible for the purpose of
determining well groundedness, and on medical evidence of
record linking PTSD to the claimed stressors, the Board finds
the claim plausible, and therefore, well grounded within the
meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). See Grivois v.
Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136, 140 (1994) (holding that a well-
grounded claim is one that is plausible, capable of
substantiation or meritorious on its own). The Board also
finds that VA has fulfilled its duty to assist by properly
and fully developing all relevant evidence necessary for the
equitable disposition of the veteran's claim.
Service connection may be established by affirmatively
showing inception of an injury or disability in service. 38
U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1998). Service
connection for PTSD requires medical evidence establishing a
clear diagnosis of the condition, competent medical evidence
linking current PTSD symptomatology to the claimed in service
stressor, and credible supporting evidence that the claimed
stressor actually occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In this
case, while the veteran's mental problems have been variously
diagnosed since discharge from service, the evidence of
record includes several diagnoses of PTSD. In fact, since
January 1998, the veteran has participated as an inpatient in
a PTSD group therapy program, and has consistently been
diagnosed with PTSD.
The evidence of record also includes a medical opinion
linking the veteran's PTSD to at least one of the veteran's
claimed in-service stressors. A VA examiner who evaluated
the veteran in May 1998 diagnosed the veteran with PTSD and
indicated that this diagnosis was affected by the stress the
veteran experienced while serving on a cruiser in a heavy
combat zone during the Korean conflict and being bombarded by
the enemy.
The Court has held that, in adjudicating a claim for PTSD,
the evidence necessary to establish the occurrence of a
stressor during service varies depending on whether the
veteran was "engaged in combat with the enemy." Hayes v.
Brown, 5 Vet.App. 60, 66 (1993). If it is shown through
military citation or other appropriate evidence that a
veteran engaged in combat with the enemy, and the claimed
stressors are related to combat, the veteran's lay testimony
regarding the reported stressors must be accepted as
conclusive evidence of their actual occurrence, provided the
testimony is found to be satisfactory, e.g., credible and
"consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships
of such service." In such cases, no further developmental
or corroborative evidence is necessary. 38 U.S.C.A. §
1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d). However, if the evidence
demonstrates that the veteran did not engage in combat with
the enemy, or the claimed stressor is not related to combat,
the veteran's lay testimony alone is not sufficient to
establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. In such
cases, the evidence must include evidence that corroborates
the veteran's testimony as to the occurrence of the claimed
stressor. Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet.App. 163 (1996) (holding
that the veteran's own testimony as a matter of law cannot by
itself establish the existence of a stressor); Moreau v.
Brown, 9 Vet.App. 389, 395-6 (1996) (holding that credible
supporting evidence of the actual existence of a stressor
cannot consist solely of a noncombat veteran's solitary
testimony or an after-the-fact medical nexus based on such
testimony).
The veteran's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from the
Armed Forces of the United States) shows that the veteran
served on the USS Juneau during his tour of duty, which
extended from June 1951 to February 1955. It also shows that
he received the National Defense Service Medal, Navy
Occupation Service Medal, Korean Service Medal, and the
United Nations Service Medal, but no combat-related medals or
citations for his service. According to Administrative
Remarks dated September 1952, the veteran's service on the
USS Juneau from April 1952 to August 1953 involved
participation in Task Force 77, which engaged in surface
bombardment, gun strikes and combat operations in the Korean
combat zone. As the record stands, the Board is unclear
whether the veteran's participation in these operations
constitutes combat duty. Therefore, supporting evidence of
the veteran's statements is necessary to prove the occurrence
of the claimed stressors.
The Court has held that "credible supporting" evidence of a
noncombat stressor can be met by other than service records.
Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 283, 289 (1994). The RO in this
case has not attempted to verify any of the stressors alleged
by the veteran. However, the Board believes that the
aforementioned Administrative Remarks, in conjunction with
newspaper clippings, bombline summaries and radio press news
reports submitted in April 1998, as part of the veteran's
service diary, support the veteran's allegations that the in-
service stressors actually occurred. These documents
disclose that the veteran served on an anti-aircraft cruiser
in a heavy combat zone and participated in surface
bombardments, activities which the May 1998 VA examiner
indicated were affecting the veteran's PTSD.
The evidence of record includes a clear diagnosis of PTSD, an
opinion linking PTSD to an in-service stressor, and credible
evidence that the claimed stressor actually occurred. The
Board thus finds that the evidence supports the veteran's
claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, and that
this claim must be granted.
ORDER
Service connection for PTSD is granted.
JOHN R. PAGANO
Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals